EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

condoned.\n3. We have duly considered the issue and find some merit in the contentions. We have also gone through medical documents filed in support of the above submissions. However, it is equally true that there is substantial delay in both the years which also indicates some element of carelessness on part of the assessee who must have other persons

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A, section 271, section 271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January

MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

section 270A of the Act vide penalty order dated 15.03.2024. Since both appeals emanate from the same assessment and involve interconnected issues, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 1023 days. The order of the learned

MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

section 270A of the Act vide penalty order dated 15.03.2024. Since both appeals emanate from the same assessment and involve interconnected issues, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 1023 days. The order of the learned

BHAVESH GHANSHYAM ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTL TAX)-1,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

condoned the delay with a direction to the concerned Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. Against this order of ITAT, Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) vide M.A. No. 126/Mum/2019 under section 254(2) of the Act. In its M.A., Department raised the ground that order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is not appealable

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

condoned.\n3. We have duly considered the issue and find some merit in the contentions. We have also gone through medical documents filed in support of the above submissions. However, it is equally true that there is substantial delay in both the years which also indicates some element of carelessness on part of the assessee who must have other persons

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5)/THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

270A. [C] General:- • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed late and the delay may please be condoned. • A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted at the time of hearing. 2. Sole grievance of assessee is against the denial of deduction

BIANCA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest received from co-operative banks. However, we note that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. During the course of hearing Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) was caused on account of bonafide reasons

MANSUKHLAL MOHANLAL MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

2 & S.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF recovery of penalty demand arising from order passed under section 270A of the Act. Since both matters arise from the same penalty proceedings and were heard together, they are being disposed of by this common consolidated order. Condonation of Delay

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal is challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs. 14,50,038/- by the AO. 6. In this regard Ld. AR reiterated

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue

SIROYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2,15,19,475/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding under section 270A of the Act for the reason that the assessee has under reported its income in consequence to misreporting of the income. The assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A) against both the orders of the AO on 17.02.2023. There was a delay of 320 days (after

SIROYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2,15,19,475/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding under section 270A of the Act for the reason that the assessee has under reported its income in consequence to misreporting of the income. The assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A) against both the orders of the AO on 17.02.2023. There was a delay of 320 days (after

DEEPAK GOPINATH BIRJE,GOREGAON EAST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI,

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Deepak Gopinathbirje Commissioner Of Income Tax A/604, Lakshachandi Heights, Off. Gen. Vs Nfac, Delhi A.K. Vaidya Marg, Gokuldham, Mumbai – 400063. [Pan: Ahcpk6464F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 270A of the Income Tax Act) and rejected application without proper reason as even condition laid down u/s 270AA(2) are satisfied. 9. The Honourable ITAT may please be considered the filing of the appeal before Honourable ITAT delayed 172 days and delay may please be condoned

KAVITA JASJIT SINGH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), CIR-3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 270A of the Act, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The present appeal is barred by 28 days. In its affidavit seeking condonation of delay